Male chickadees match neighbors interactively at dawn: support for the social dynamics hypothesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Males of many songbird species participate in a distinct chorus beginning before sunrise. Despite its ubiquity, the function of dawn chorusing remains poorly understood. We tested the social dynamics hypothesis, which states that males sing at dawn to mediate their social relationships with neighbors through interactive communication. Using a 16-microphone acoustic location system, we recorded 29 entire dawn choruses in 10 neighborhoods of 6–10 territorial male black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus) of known dominance rank. We analyzed song frequency matching and overlapping between neighboring males in 10 choruses and compared the intensity of these behaviors with social factors. Chickadees matched the frequency of their neighbor's songs more often than expected by chance. The level of matching was higher between neighbors who belonged to different flocks during the previous winter than between neighbors who had been flockmates. Males of the same dominance rank matched each other more than males of disparate ranks. There was no relationship between matching and pairing status or distance between opponents. Overlapping was used less than expected by chance. No measures of song overlapping were related to measured social factors. Our results show that neighboring male chickadees interact vocally at dawn by frequency matching. This is the first study to show that the intensity of songbird vocal interactions at dawn varies with social factors, supporting the social dynamics hypothesis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".